Jose Israel Leon v. United States of America

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted December 2, 2022*
Decided December 5, 2022
Before
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
No. 22-1770
JOSE ISRAEL LEON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
No. 22-cv-112
William M. Conley,
Judge.
* The defendants-appellees in both cases were not served with process and are
not participating in these appeals. We have agreed to decide the appeals without oral
argument because they are frivolous. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(A).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

Nos. 22-1770 & 22-1785 Page 2
No. 22-1785
JOSE ISRAEL LEON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
No. 22-C-265
William C. Griesbach,
Judge.
O R D E R
Jose Israel Leon sued several federal and state government agencies in two
lawsuits in different judicial districts, in each case alleging a far-reaching conspiracy to
torture him. The district courts dismissed his complaints as frivolous at the screening
stage. We have consolidated these two appeals for disposition. See FED. R. A PP . P.
3(b)(2). The two cases have some different defendants and were brought in separate
districts, but the complaints are substantially similar, as are the decisions under review
and Leon’s briefs. Because Leon fails to develop any arguments, we dismiss the appeals.
Leon’s lawsuits assert that the government and military “attached” to his brain
in 2018 and that the defendants use technologies such as electromagnetic pulses and
drones to control his brain and torture him, his family, and others. He also asserted that
disease, terrorism, global warming, and other ills are part of this campaign. As relief in
both cases, he asked for records related to the alleged misconduct, for criminal
immunity, and for the defendants to stop torturing him and his family.
When Leon applied to proceed in forma pauperis, the district courts screened
and dismissed the complaints. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In the Western District, Judge
Conley explained that Leon’s complaint violated pleading rules and was “frivolous”:
Leon did not ground his “outlandish” and “far-reaching” allegations in fact and did not
identify how he was harmed or any person who was responsible. Judge Conley gave a
deadline for amending the complaint, but Leon let it pass and proceeded to appeal. In
the Eastern District, Judge Griesbach concluded that Leon’s allegations were
“delusional” and “irrational,” dismissed the complaint as frivolous, and denied leave to
amend on the ground that it would be futile. Leon appealed this dismissal as well.

-- 2 of 3 --

Nos. 22-1770 & 22-1785 Page 3
We must dismiss the appeals because Leon fails to provide any basis for
overturning the district courts’ decisions, as required by Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 28(a)(8). See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545–46 (7th Cir. 2001). His
two “briefs” are in the form of long emails that repeat the allegations in his complaints.
We construe pro se arguments liberally, but we cannot glean any ground for reversal
from these filings, which do not mention why the complaints were found lacking or
develop any arguments for reversal. See id.; Shipley v. Chicago Bd. of Election Comm’rs,
947 F.3d 1056, 1062–63 (7th Cir. 2020); Klein v. O'Brien, 884 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir. 2018).
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --